QuoteThe dismissal of Clinton’s book is sadly not dissimilar from the way Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have recently been all but shushed in Congress. There’s something about a powerful woman using her voice—and in a way that is not gentle or measured but bold and pointed—that still doesn’t sit well with the general public. (See: Clinton openly threatened with cries of “lock her up” to this day at Trump rallies; being called a “nasty woman.”) In spite of her achievements—and likely because of them—Clinton has always been seen, as then-candidate Barack Obama quipped in 2008, as just “likable enough.” During the 2016 campaign (and long before), she was lambasted for being rehearsed and robotic—a policy wonk, lacking in natural charisma. (By the way—what we wouldn’t give for a policy wonk in the White House today . . .) But now that she’s speaking freely and frankly, the sexist little secret is being laid bare: People didn’t want Clinton to change her manner of speech; they wanted her to stop talking altogether. Consider that while people want Clinton to be quiet, noted white nationalist political mastermind Steve Bannon got the mainstream sit-down treatment on 60 Minutes last night. Or that on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last week, Sanders all but belittled Clinton’s book as “silly,” a statement that felt like the equivalent of a husband calling his wife “hysterical.”

the Dem party is in shambles, be a team player, @#$%& and do something positive to help the situation. She lost and if the Dem party wasn't screwing with the process..which they clearly were, she might not have even gotten the nomination..period.

QuoteKraniac
I don't think it has anything to do with her being a woman.

the Dem party is in shambles, be a team player, @#$%& and do something positive to help the situation. She lost and if the Dem party wasn't screwing with the process..which they clearly were, she might not have even gotten the nomination..period.

QuoteThe dismissal of Clinton’s book is sadly not dissimilar from the way Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have recently been all but shushed in Congress. There’s something about a powerful woman using her voice—and in a way that is not gentle or measured but bold and pointed—that still doesn’t sit well with the general public. (See: Clinton openly threatened with cries of “lock her up” to this day at Trump rallies; being called a “nasty woman.”) In spite of her achievements—and likely because of them—Clinton has always been seen, as then-candidate Barack Obama quipped in 2008, as just “likable enough.” During the 2016 campaign (and long before), she was lambasted for being rehearsed and robotic—a policy wonk, lacking in natural charisma. (By the way—what we wouldn’t give for a policy wonk in the White House today . . .) But now that she’s speaking freely and frankly, the sexist little secret is being laid bare: People didn’t want Clinton to change her manner of speech; they wanted her to stop talking altogether. Consider that while people want Clinton to be quiet, noted white nationalist political mastermind Steve Bannon got the mainstream sit-down treatment on 60 Minutes last night. Or that on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last week, Sanders all but belittled Clinton’s book as “silly,” a statement that felt like the equivalent of a husband calling his wife “hysterical.”

QuoteThe dismissal of Clinton’s book is sadly not dissimilar from the way Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have recently been all but shushed in Congress. There’s something about a powerful woman using her voice—and in a way that is not gentle or measured but bold and pointed—that still doesn’t sit well with the general public. (See: Clinton openly threatened with cries of “lock her up” to this day at Trump rallies; being called a “nasty woman.”) In spite of her achievements—and likely because of them—Clinton has always been seen, as then-candidate Barack Obama quipped in 2008, as just “likable enough.” During the 2016 campaign (and long before), she was lambasted for being rehearsed and robotic—a policy wonk, lacking in natural charisma. (By the way—what we wouldn’t give for a policy wonk in the White House today . . .) But now that she’s speaking freely and frankly, the sexist little secret is being laid bare: People didn’t want Clinton to change her manner of speech; they wanted her to stop talking altogether. Consider that while people want Clinton to be quiet, noted white nationalist political mastermind Steve Bannon got the mainstream sit-down treatment on 60 Minutes last night. Or that on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last week, Sanders all but belittled Clinton’s book as “silly,” a statement that felt like the equivalent of a husband calling his wife “hysterical.”

Quotevision63Here's a page from Bernie's book whining about his treatment in 2015 for helpful hints. His book was published one week after the election in November. The media described it as "therapy."

Quite. And the "screwing with the process" was also known as the rules that the party had come up with well before, predating Sanders run, and (unless I'm mistaken) the same rules that Obama won under. Don't like the rules, get involved and change them.

Thanks for the post $tevie. Clinton was the best candidate running, won the nomination with a clear majority of the popular vote, but lost the general (despite winning that popular vote too), and she will never run for anything again.

She lost because of sexism. No doubt. But, the problem is that she is rehearsed and robotic. Very much so, and that is what people reacted to, at a very visceral level. It's something I found myself a bit nauseated at when she would reach back for answers in the debates that were so obviously rehearsed. She was/is the female version of Al Gore, who took a ton of grief for the same reasons.

Ultimately, I don't give a damn about the book, etc. If people don't want to pay attention to her, then don't; if they do, then buy the book, go to the speeches, etc. It's more fodder for the media than anything else. And getting an $8,000,000 advance doesn't hurt her, either.

My God, what I wouldn't give for a "rehearsed and robotic" president over the dysfunctional random clown show we have now. Are voters that shallow? I don't think so. Apathy was the biggest problem in 2016. Maybe people are awake now. We'll see.

QuoteLemon Drop
My God, what I wouldn't give for a "rehearsed and robotic" president over the dysfunctional random clown show we have now. Are voters that shallow? I don't think so. Apathy was the biggest problem in 2016. Maybe people are awake now. We'll see.

People were so called "awake" then. We trusted that a certain constituency would vote with us but they chose to let us down. To quote Joy, "I'll bet that hurts just a wee bit more. Especially when you lose by 77,500 votes in 3 states & a lady who dined with Putin gets twice that."

I never did understand why Hillary didn't blame the economy on George W Bush, brag about what the Democratic administration had done to fix things, and argue that we needed to stick with Democratic policies to finally come out of the recession for good. The numbers on job creation and economic growth support this argument, but it has to be made with force and emotion, particularly in the places that have been hit hard for the past 3 decades.

Also, Trump's slogan about making America great again is a dangerously powerful message, and the Democrats didn't counter it early on. The Karl Rove approach would be to go after that slogan tooth and nail from the beginning, perhaps by pointing out the Bush recession and the Obama recovery, and ask snidely whether greatness equals poverty.

In the meanwhile, the Democrats should keep going back to places like W Virginia and point out that coal mining jobs did not come back under Trump, that Trump lied to them, and they should stop being chumps.

And, by the way, everybody with a bit of sanity should keep pointing out that the Republican position on global warming (whatever its nuances this week and the next) is a pile of lies -- and that for Republicans to continue to argue that global warming either doesn't exist (two force 4+ hurricanes in a two week period?) or isn't caused by human activity (what else caused it then -- and don't accept the answer that we just don't know) are being totally dishonest. We knew of the problem a quarter of a century ago, and we could have done something about it. The result is an increasing toll of lives and property lost.

QuoteLemon Drop
My God, what I wouldn't give for a "rehearsed and robotic" president over the dysfunctional random clown show we have now. Are voters that shallow? I don't think so. Apathy was the biggest problem in 2016. Maybe people are awake now. We'll see.

People were so called "awake" then. We trusted that a certain constituency would vote with us but they chose to let us down. To quote Joy, "I'll bet that hurts just a wee bit more. Especially when you lose by 77,500 votes in 3 states & a lady who dined with Putin gets twice that."

None of this was about jobs or the lack thereof. It was about a shrinking white population fearful of being rendered second rate or insignificant by "others." They decided to protect that identity via Trump.

>>None of this was about jobs or the lack thereof. It was about a shrinking white population fearful of being rendered second rate or insignificant by "others." They decided to protect that identity via Trump.

Yeah, I think a HUGE part of what happened is that in the face of declining middle and lower class standards of living a large number of people said, "We'd rather return to a hierarchy based on race and gender" ...because they're white.

Its the same old bargain thats been operating since slavery was formalized on this land.

QuoteLemon Drop
My God, what I wouldn't give for a "rehearsed and robotic" president over the dysfunctional random clown show we have now. Are voters that shallow? I don't think so. Apathy was the biggest problem in 2016. Maybe people are awake now. We'll see.

It wasn't apathy. It was dislike for both candidates.

The book is another attempt from her to rewrite history. At least she seems to be getting it out of the way early instead of releasing it a year from now and dragging Democrats down in the lead up to 2018. Their big problem now is rebuilding the national structure after it collapsed when all of Clinton's operatives left.

QuoteFilliam H. Muffman
It wasn't apathy. It was dislike for both candidates.

One candidate was justifiably disliked for a lack of qualifications and a spur of the moment participation, with utterly repugnant behavior ("just locker room talk" - more like a pattern of criminal sexual predation that was only unprosecuted due to the individual's immense wealth; "because I'm smart" bankruptcies and stiffing people who were expecting fair contracts be adhered to; "saying it like it is" because the man has no filter and no judgement... except that maybe it's a negative filter to say the WORST possible thing with the least socially beneficial agenda.)

The other candidate had carefully and diligently prepared for this role for a lifetime, and due to her qualifications had been consistently slandered and demeaned (feminazi benghazi and don't think that alliteration ISN'T deliberate) by a vastly funded right-wing conspiracy of a handful of wealthy men (Kochs, Scaifes, Olins, et cetera whose status quo her administration's policies might upend) who leveraged the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcast and oligarchy connections to Russian trollbots to build an army of misinformed white men who would do their bidding threatening even a "second amendment solution" if things didn't go their way.

Somehow these wealthy few men managed to get all the dislike that should rightfully be projected onto them deflected onto perhaps the most qualified candidate in the modern era... and we're blaming her for not being likable enough?

Somehow we've got to be able to criminally prosecute brainwashing, which is clearly what is happening to the viewers and listeners of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and other right wing sources where facts about complex situations are discarded in favor of contrite and hostile sound bites that would undermine the stability of our republic. How else do you explain dramatic changes in political opinion about the higher education and Russia in just the past two years? We need some kind of deprogramming to get these individuals back on track before it's too late, or at least to motivate the ones who didn't vote to get out and commit this next time around.

Quotegabester
The other candidate had carefully and diligently prepared for this role for a lifetime, and due to her qualifications had been consistently slandered and demeaned (feminazi benghazi and don't think that alliteration ISN'T deliberate) by a vastly funded right-wing conspiracy of a handful of wealthy men (Kochs, Scaifes, Olins, et cetera whose status quo her administration's policies might upend) who leveraged the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcast and oligarchy connections to Russian trollbots to build an army of misinformed white men who would do their bidding threatening even a "second amendment solution" if things didn't go their way.

It wasn't just misinformed white men. From the few polling statistics that were mentioned, middle aged white women was the biggest block that swung against Clinton. It's frustrating to try to back this up with real numbers, I still haven't seen a reliable breakdown of voting statistics.

QuoteFilliam H. MuffmanIt wasn't just misinformed white men. From the few polling statistics that were mentioned, middle aged white women was the biggest block that swung against Clinton. It's frustrating to try to back this up with real numbers, I still haven't seen a reliable breakdown of voting statistics.

QuoteLemon Drop
My God, what I wouldn't give for a "rehearsed and robotic" president over the dysfunctional random clown show we have now. Are voters that shallow? I don't think so. Apathy was the biggest problem in 2016. Maybe people are awake now. We'll see.

People were so called "awake" then. We trusted that a certain constituency would vote with us but they chose to let us down. To quote Joy, "I'll bet that hurts just a wee bit more. Especially when you lose by 77,500 votes in 3 states & a lady who dined with Putin gets twice that."

By awake I mean showing up to vote. A lot of people didn't. Our voter turnouts are among the worst in the free world. That's how you get President Donald J Trump. The rest is noise.

That's true. But in that case even Obama win with flaccid margins since he didn't really turn out more voters. This being the case the potential for adding to the voter rolls are immense. That's a good thing.

QuoteFilliam H. Muffman
It wasn't apathy. It was dislike for both candidates.

One candidate was justifiably disliked for a lack of qualifications and a spur of the moment participation, with utterly repugnant behavior ("just locker room talk" - more like a pattern of criminal sexual predation that was only unprosecuted due to the individual's immense wealth; "because I'm smart" bankruptcies and stiffing people who were expecting fair contracts be adhered to; "saying it like it is" because the man has no filter and no judgement... except that maybe it's a negative filter to say the WORST possible thing with the least socially beneficial agenda.)

The other candidate had carefully and diligently prepared for this role for a lifetime, and due to her qualifications had been consistently slandered and demeaned (feminazi benghazi and don't think that alliteration ISN'T deliberate) by a vastly funded right-wing conspiracy of a handful of wealthy men (Kochs, Scaifes, Olins, et cetera whose status quo her administration's policies might upend) who leveraged the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcast and oligarchy connections to Russian trollbots to build an army of misinformed white men who would do their bidding threatening even a "second amendment solution" if things didn't go their way.

Somehow these wealthy few men managed to get all the dislike that should rightfully be projected onto them deflected onto perhaps the most qualified candidate in the modern era... and we're blaming her for not being likable enough?

Somehow we've got to be able to criminally prosecute brainwashing, which is clearly what is happening to the viewers and listeners of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and other right wing sources where facts about complex situations are discarded in favor of contrite and hostile sound bites that would undermine the stability of our republic. How else do you explain dramatic changes in political opinion about the higher education and Russia in just the past two years? We need some kind of deprogramming to get these individuals back on track before it's too late, or at least to motivate the ones who didn't vote to get out and commit this next time around.

QuoteFilliam H. Muffman
It wasn't apathy. It was dislike for both candidates.

One candidate was justifiably disliked for a lack of qualifications and a spur of the moment participation, with utterly repugnant behavior ("just locker room talk" - more like a pattern of criminal sexual predation that was only unprosecuted due to the individual's immense wealth; "because I'm smart" bankruptcies and stiffing people who were expecting fair contracts be adhered to; "saying it like it is" because the man has no filter and no judgement... except that maybe it's a negative filter to say the WORST possible thing with the least socially beneficial agenda.)

The other candidate had carefully and diligently prepared for this role for a lifetime, and due to her qualifications had been consistently slandered and demeaned (feminazi benghazi and don't think that alliteration ISN'T deliberate) by a vastly funded right-wing conspiracy of a handful of wealthy men (Kochs, Scaifes, Olins, et cetera whose status quo her administration's policies might upend) who leveraged the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcast and oligarchy connections to Russian trollbots to build an army of misinformed white men who would do their bidding threatening even a "second amendment solution" if things didn't go their way.

Somehow these wealthy few men managed to get all the dislike that should rightfully be projected onto them deflected onto perhaps the most qualified candidate in the modern era... and we're blaming her for not being likable enough?

Somehow we've got to be able to criminally prosecute brainwashing, which is clearly what is happening to the viewers and listeners of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and other right wing sources where facts about complex situations are discarded in favor of contrite and hostile sound bites that would undermine the stability of our republic. How else do you explain dramatic changes in political opinion about the higher education and Russia in just the past two years? We need some kind of deprogramming to get these individuals back on track before it's too late, or at least to motivate the ones who didn't vote to get out and commit this next time around.

Unfortunately, there was a lot of brainwashing done by Sanders & his crew as well. This belief that Clinton rigged the system (a system which has been in place since McGovern was slaughtered at the polls, although nobody eviscerated HIM for that) is all stuff that Sanders pounded into his followers. I have friends on FB who make the most incredible statements about Clinton (she wanted to start WWIII, she is a hardened criminal, she was totally in the service of the banks and lied when she said she wanted to help people) and they are not Trumpers they are Bernie supporters who refuse to stop complaining. Oddly enough, nobody from the Clinton camp is supposed to complain about anything that happened, and yet the Sanders people are apparently free to kvetch and piss and moan for the rest of eternity. I am so sorry that I voted for Sanders, and I don't know what to do with the damned t-shirt because if I wear it I will look like a dimwitted cry baby.

QuoteCa Bob
I never did understand why Hillary didn't blame the economy on George W Bush, brag about what the Democratic administration had done to fix things, and argue that we needed to stick with Democratic policies to finally come out of the recession for good. The numbers on job creation and economic growth support this argument, but it has to be made with force and emotion, particularly in the places that have been hit hard for the past 3 decades.

Also, Trump's slogan about making America great again is a dangerously powerful message, and the Democrats didn't counter it early on. The Karl Rove approach would be to go after that slogan tooth and nail from the beginning, perhaps by pointing out the Bush recession and the Obama recovery, and ask snidely whether greatness equals poverty.

This is the democratic party problem, not the candidates' problem, although I certainly agree that she could have done a far better jib at highlighting tje gains made in the economy the last eight years. Fwiw, the party sucks at messaging.

I completely agree that the D party sux @#$%& at messaging. Even now, nearly a year post-election, they suck at it. They lose all the time to these Tea Party idiots and a-holes like Ryan and Toad Man, etc. WTF. Morans. Part of that though is the party has lost its way. Used to be the party of the regular people. Now, or since about the mid-'90s, aside from a few issues, it's just not.

Fact remains she (and it seems most of the D party) is pure Establishment bought and paid for by Wall Street and the corps. Although I have to think it would have been interesting to see what she would've done (if anything) with a single-payer option -- and ACA in general. No doubt she would've shored up ACA, okay, that's better than gutting it but it's still a corp giveaway to Rx and ins cos. If she had pushed single-payer through, and re-negotiated our drug pricing similar to what Canadians get, I'd have called her an effective president of the people. We could speculate all day on this stuff and more; sadly it doesn't change the horrid election outcome.

I voted for her, but I feel that HC lost for a lot of reasons. Mostly her own fault imho. She ran against a blowhard, ignorant and not very intelligent jerk who was light years ahead of her in commanding headlines and admiration despite being a man-pig. Somehow she managed to pull a loss from a win.

Yes, it's true, politics does not come easy to her and she was indeed like the Al Gore of yore, trying so very hard, too hard in fact to be polished and approachable but instead coming off wooden. God love her but our voters do not appreciate intelligence sans charisma. They mostly appreciate charisma first, then intelligence is acceptable if you happen to have it.

BC of course had all that in spades, plus he's male and that is a huge factor. HRC is probably the smartest person in the room (and the one who tries the hardest), probably even smarter than her hubs who is no slouch. I wish her all the best. I know as much as many of us don't want to say it, she is divisive. Sexism does play a large role in that but I think she brings a lot of the derision on herself dating back to comments like, "I wasn't at home baking cookies." I bet she wishes she could erase moments like that all_the_time.

This is why voters, by and large, do not remain "awake": "... voters do not appreciate intelligence sans charisma. They mostly appreciate charisma first, then intelligence is acceptable if you happen to have it. "

Every Democratic candidate who lost in anyone's recent memory had some too-soft personality weakness that hurt them with voters. I'd exempt HRC from this group if it weren't for the outsized blowhard she ran against, who would have made anyone seem muted by comparison.

Pick any candidate's gaffe or negative-campaign hit against them, and without a quick zinger or strong pushback, all the intelligence and better policy positions in the world won't save you.

We're stuck in a loop of what I've heard called "negative partisanship."

Increasingly Americans don't like to say they are affiliated with either major party, though it's frequently easy to guess from beliefs and behaviors which party a person favors.

Voting has become about voting against a party rather than for a party. The media and political discourse in general is so negative and about personal disparagement that it makes people feel embarrassed to say they belong to a party at all. That's really too bad, because if you focus on who you hate rather than on what you want America to be in the future, you're less likely to engage in the process at all. (result: low voter turnout for both parties, which always hurts Democrats more)

So be proud of your party and its values and say you're part of it. Don't talk about like you're just an outside observer/critic. Whatever think is wrong, work to change it from within.

I agree that she didn't really inspire people to vote for her but I have to wonder what she'd be able to accomplish if she was in the WH with the Republicans going way overboard to oppose ANYTHING she wanted to get passed. Which in my book, would be just as bad as things stand now with 45's BS.

Also, Howard Dean was on Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart podcast (really interesting one to listen to btw) and he said something interesting: more younger voters turned out than older voters to vote for Obama BUT THEY AREN'T DEMOCRATS. They are independents and not fans of big government. While Hillary got the popular vote, she didn't really inspire the younger voters like Obama did.

QuoteLizabeth
I agree that she didn't really inspire people to vote for her but I have to wonder what she'd be able to accomplish if she was in the WH with the Republicans going way overboard to oppose ANYTHING she wanted to get passed. Which in my book, would be just as bad as things stand now with 45's BS.

Also, Howard Dean was on Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart podcast (really interesting one to listen to btw) and he said something interesting: more younger voters turned out than older voters to vote for Obama BUT THEY AREN'T DEMOCRATS. They are independents and not fans of big government. While Hillary got the popular vote, she didn't really inspire the younger voters like Obama did.

Turns out voting against a white supremacist, racist bigot required more inspiration. The dumbest generation we shall call them.

The thing about "independents..." they aren't really "independent." Their beliefs and values (and most importantly their voting habits) tie them strongly to one party or another. But because they have negative, media-influenced feelings about party affiliation, they won't publicly declare. This is a pattern that really hurts our system and drives voter apathy.

It's actually the GOP that has a bigger problem with young people leaving the party.

I'm afraid the generation that can't be bothered to ring a doorbell simply finds voting to be too much trouble. They would vote if they could text "Here" to the candidate of their choice. Instead they complain on the internet.

Muffman is right. I would never have voted for Trump, but with Hillary, better than Trump wasn't good enough. So I didn't vote. So far, it's abundantly clear that it would be in both party's best interests to choose better candidates. Will they do so, or will they continue to make excuses? Probably make excuses, from what I can tell so far.

Quotekj
Muffman is right. I would never have voted for Trump, but with Hillary, better than Trump wasn't good enough. So I didn't vote. So far, it's abundantly clear that it would be in both party's best interests to choose better candidates. Will they do so, or will they continue to make excuses? Probably make excuses, from what I can tell so far.

The GOP sent out 16 candidates, Trump beat them all. The electorate decided that White Rule mattered.

Plus, Hillary is not "wooden", she's just plain fake. She was built with data. Problem is, people are not machines and if there's one thing people can do better than machines, it's spotting fakes. And that's why she didn't win.

Quotekj
Muffman is right. I would never have voted for Trump, but with Hillary, better than Trump wasn't good enough. So I didn't vote. So far, it's abundantly clear that it would be in both party's best interests to choose better candidates. Will they do so, or will they continue to make excuses? Probably make excuses, from what I can tell so far.

The GOP sent out 16 candidates, Trump beat them all. The electorate decided that White Rule mattered.

They all sucked. And then Hillary is so bad, she can't beat Trump. It has very little to do with White Rule (I don't even know what that really is). Maybe after democrats and republicans are done alienating people, the only group left that's cohesive is the racists.

The party didn't choose Clinton, she build her own machine inside it and pretended it was a friendly takeover. No standard candidate would have had a chance against her. The only reason Bernie did well was because he started a grass roots movement outside the party.